Why Government Must Be Abolished

LewRockwell ^ | 12-08-03 | Brad Edmonds

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

That forcible government is a moral wrong in itself is enough reason to abolish it...

I wholeheartedly agree!! Let's pass a law against it.
/sarcasm

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Ignore the fact at your own peril. It's the reason Communism doesn't work and the reason anarchy doesn't work. Not liking it doesn't change the reality.

No one asks for your consent for truth to exist. Nor has anyone demanded you obey, just that you be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

[Dead Corpse]

The fact of the matter is that most people DO act morally. Even in the absence of an over-riding authority. I agree that given enough temptation, anyone can fall from "grace". The basic animal nature in us all almost predicates such an impulses existance.

But we are more than just animals are we not? Can't we make a "choice" to act morally? How does this differ from having that choice taken from you by a government at the point of a gun? How much moral corruption can be laid upon a person given authority over others before you get situations like we have today with our current abuse of the power structure?

As I said, UNTIL people grow up more... a limited Constutional Republic is THE singular BEST system as long as those holding the offices realize that violating their oaths can have dire consequences.

"We the People..." have been VERY lax in our duty to keep our government honest.

To get back to where we should be, things like an NRST, citing Constitutional authority for the existance of a Law before passage, line item veto, instant run-off elections, and a few other logical meassures could go a long way towards bringing us back from the brink of destruction.

[Baseballguy]

How about the argument that there be no federal government.

Lets go back in time to 1830 when a State of the united states had a real government. When States ruled thier lands. Federalists where the destruction of the constitution. There by no state is greater than the whole and no state can determine its citizens laws. So that only the United States of America out of washington, DC will make all rules and laws first.

[massadvj]

While I agree with the author about most of what she says, I no longer care. I'm going to get my drugs for free because the government's going to pay. As a baby boomer, I was weened on drugs at an early age, so I've come to like them quite a bit. In the early years we did pot, acid, mescaline. Mostly crude stuff we made in high school chemistry labs.

But now. Well, it's beyond my wildest dreams. I keep seeing the ads for all these new designer drugs -- Prozac, Zocor, Celebrex -- they look way better than that stuff we did in high school. I've been wanting to try them, but I couldn't afford them. Now that the government's coughing up $400 billion to buy them for me, this tired old boomer is like a kid in a candy store.

Of course, the first thing I'm going to try is that Viagra. Wow. When I was younger, I never imagined there would be drug that could do such a wondrous thing, or that I'd ever need one. But now. Well, who couldn't use a little "help" now and then?

How could this woman be saying the awful things she says when the good old federal government has now signed on to give me a hard-on for life? Thank you, thank you, thank you! Free Viagra for life makes me proud to be a "member" of the Republican Party, if you know what I mean.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I have no problem with limiting our government. I would have been a bit more restrictive than Hamilton about a Federal government at the time the Convention was going on.

But what is being discussed is anarchy. No Government. Let's look at the situation surrounding the creation of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were a bust. People were not behaving and there were all sorts of problems associated with the Articles. And that was as close to a Federal anarchy as you could get.

Look at the French situation. After the revolution, it was tantamount to anarchy for large areas of France. When Bonaparte came to power, it was his promise to restore order that made him a popular figure.

Let's learn from history, let's examine how people react without the rule of any Government, before we say it free us or that people will behave themselves without the constraint of law. History teaches us different.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Given no consequences for immoral decisions or incentive towards moral behavior, give me an example that a significant minority of people will act in a way that does not benefit them to the disadvantage of others.

[Dead Corpse]

Being shot and killed by your intended victim is "no incentive"? I beg to differ.

[Dead Corpse]

Also, with the lack of Affirmative Action and fair hiring practices, freedom of association would be a force in society again. Shame may actually come back into vogue as a means of curbing public behaviors.

That'd be neat.

[tpaine]

You claim "most people are immoral" and see it as a "fact", and a "truth" ?

No, Anitius, -- that is just the authoritarian line, promoted by socialists who seek to control our life & liberty.

This socialistic fallacy assumes that people are basically bad for working in their self interest.
Socialism assumes that everybody must be forced to work to better society as a whole. This "idea" you subscribe to assumes that no one will behave themselves unless there are authoritarian rules.
- Not so.
Basically, this country had all the 'rules' we needed, after the passage of the 14th amendment in 1868. Unfortunately, instead of following those constitutional mandates, we've gradually followed the world into socialism.

[tpaine]

Given no consequences for immoral decisions or incentive towards moral behavior, give me an example that a significant minority of people will act in a way that does not benefit them to the disadvantage of others.
107

---

The USA from 1868 to '98 would be a fine example, imo, of how a majority of people, unfettered by anything but basic criminal law, -- act in a way that benefits all to the advantage of society.
The 'Victorian Compromise' worked quite well. Consequenses for socalled immoral behavior existed, but were soundly ignored.